In a recent strip about Boggle, I used the word “glond” ostensibly as a made-up word, a word so obviously silly that no one could take it seriously, but yet which could be argued to be somehow real.

Well, here is a note from Marksman Nikolardo, who sends the following pictures to support an argument I would not have believed without documentation. This dictionary is used in the Nikolardo family for both Boggle and Scrabble:

And in this dictionary, there is a certain page…

And on this page there is something miserable:

GLOND.

Now, then: Nikolardo points out that the bottom section of the page, where “glond” is found, is a special space for “words which were variants and/or archaic at the time this dictionary was printed, which was 1918.” So it can be argued that “glond” is not really a word. Not anymore.

And what is glond? “Awlwort” or “Cowherb.” THOSE ARE NOT WORDS EITHER.

Due to this overwhelming evidence I am going ON THE RECORD as declaring “glond” NOT A WORD, either now or EVER IN THE FUTURE. Glond is BLACKBALLED from the English language FOREVER.

What a glommox we have made of this situation! (Thanks for the pictures, Nikolardo!)

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 7th, 2010 at 3:35 am and is filed under Blog.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

King Awesomeson

I read this in the voice of Morbo from Futurama.

Bruce Rusk

Awlwort and cowherb are both in the OED, so they are distinctly word-like. I wonder, though, if this is one of those words lexicographers invent and sprinkle into their dictionaries to prevent plagiarism: if another dictionary includes this word, it has clearly copied wholesale from Webster’s.

chip

Dang, more proof that everything you read on the internet just isn’t necessarily TRUE. I am appalled.

Google backs you up: “define:glond” yields no results. Google does, however, ask you if you meant to ask for a definition of “blonde”.

I expect to see “personalized” ads offering me great deals on glonds within the hour.

Twirrim

I just love the English language for quirks like this

woollythinker

I WANT THAT BOOK.

Sorry for shouting, but I REALLY want that book.

http://www.yamara.com Yamara

I have added “Glond” as a disambiguation page to Wikipedia.

Now it is reliably disbelievable.

Jenneva

I’ve been reading Wondermark for several years now and really enjoy your work– when I saw the new items in the store, I wished that I had the extra money just to show my support (and they are bomb) but since I don’t, I’d like to express my gratitude here that Wondermark exists, is free, and is funny as hell. Thanks for your excellent contribution to the comics universe. It’s grand.

http://realgrouchy.blogspot.com RealGrouchy

Sir, you have glondt us too many times. I do not believe your assertion that “glond” is not a word.

- RG>

David

The OED doesn’t list Glond, so it’s definitively made up! On the other hand it does list awlwort and cowherb, but as two different plants, make of that what you will.

Obs

I was about to say “but it’s even in Wikipedia”, but then I saw Yamara’s comment. I’m now going to wait for someone to add a link to this page as supporting evidence. I probably won’t have to wait that long.

http://porg.es/blog/ porges

I just submitted an entry for the OED. You can’t stop it now!

Pete Lead

Are you sure those photos haven’t been tampered with? Nikolardo might be glonding you.

Jefferson M. Feebrickle, Jr.

Maybe it’s a fake entry, like you can sometimes find in lexicons (also, maps!)? While it’s a discipline of scientific jokes in lexicons, I think in dictionaries and maps sometimes small deliberate errors are included to reveal rip-offs. At least I seem to remember to have read something like that.